<< The present economy is driven by the quest to get richer. This motive is what gets options searched for, risks taken, construction and development underway, etc. The most obvious alternative is for these actions to be come from a collective working out of what society needs, and organising to produce and develop those things cooperatively, but this would involve an utterly different world view and driving mechanism. >>

Yes this motive is all-powerful. But it would be just as powerful in a steady-state society. In fact, probably more so, because instead of big business moguls leaning on government and giving them big ‘donations’, to secure very high immigration and other favours and thus constantly increasing markets and profits, they’d have to be a bit more innovative about it all… which is exactly what the country needs – more capitalistic effort being put into things that are conducive to a sustainable society instead of being at great odds with it.

I think that Dick is right when he says that << a zero-growth economy is no threat to capitalism >>. Except that we should find a better term than ‘zero growth’.

Trainer's article is welcome in one respect in that he recognises the total impossibility of much of what Dick Smith wants. To get off the growth cycle, which Trainer and others so despise, we would have to get rid of the market economy, change our political system and, oh yes, change human nature.

It would be easier to wait for the collapse. Trainer and others should get busy and forecast just when this collapse will occur, so we can see the economic system ignore the forecast.

Ludwig,I would be intrigued to know you easy solution to population growth. The Chinese and Indians have been trying to do that for the past 60 years and they have only succeeded in trebling their respective populations, even without any immigration programs. Because of that your whole argument is very tenuous methinks.

David

"It would be easier to wait for the collapse. Trainer and others should get busy and forecast just when this collapse will occur, so we can see the economic system ignore the forecast."

Curmy, you are probably right, although it should not take too much of a brain and some available resources for some PhD student to make his/her mark and calculate what sort of a time frame we are looking at.

David

The easy way for consumption to be slowed, is to stop the principle of regulating up wages as the cost of scarce resources goes up. This is a labour/green/left wing policy, the very people who make a lot of noise about the environment.
The other side is, how is the agriculture sector, a sector of the economy that is totally exposed to the world market for income going to be able to continue much longer paying non world market prices for the resources it needs to produce food and fibre?
These domestic prices are now several times the market price on the world . This makes it possible for the domestic protected consumers in the urban areas to consume huge amounts of resources.

Ted may be a little constrained in his approach to this problem, and i think misses the gist of what Dick is arguing. Obviously the steady state economy cannot be achieved overnight, and necessary preconditions must be underway to allow for transition.

Firstly, and vitally, the need to stabilise, and even reduce global population growth to below replacement level will remove the most significant driver of consumption growth and resource depletion. This will entail a recognition that we must finally deal with unacceptable levels of poverty in developing nations, largely achieved by a transfer of wealth from the West. This will not be voluntary, but wil eventually be seen as a necessary requirement to ensure our species' survival.

Secondly, we will need to transition our economy from the wasteful use of finite resources to one entirely based on renewable source, industrial scale recycling and recovery of everything that can, within energy constraints, be resused. As around 200 corporations are responsible for around 80% of global output, it is feasible to legislate for a total-recycle economy.

Once we in the process of population reduction and living within resourse restraints then productivity gains, technological advance and 'good growth' in intelectual and social pursuits will allow a profit motive to drive change--it's just that we will measure 'profit' by different metrics. Monetary gain alone will no longer be the driver...recreational time, health and psychological benefits, desirable social outcomes etc will become the new currency.

Of course this sounds utopian now, but soon enough the alternative will be self-destruction. As a species we will respond accordingly,